The No True Christian Fallacy

[Thumpalumpacus]

First, the burden of proof is with the OP to prove p is a Christian. This qualifier of p has been assumed in the premise but not argued for. How do we know p is a Christian? If p is in fact not a Christian, then there is no fallacy in the response.

I'm comfortable taking Christian P's word for it. If they tell me that they believe in Christ as a redeemer and son of their god, that's good enough for me.

They may not act as a Christian ought to, but that does not make them not Christian, and more than me occasionally saying "goddamnit" makes me not an atheist.

[Ryantology]

There's no objective standard to determine a person's Christian beliefs other than their profession of holding them.

Blame your god for not coming down and clarifying matters.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...may not act as a Christian ought to, but that does not make them not Christian...

That's one of the dilemma's of orthodox Christianity is that you don't need to be a very good Christian to enjoy your "Get-Out-of-Hell-Free" card. People get sorted into two groups: saved and not-saved. It's a pass-fail test. Most other religions, and some Christian denominations like Swedenborgians (that's me), make allowances for how well you followed the specific practices and teachings of the faith.

[Minimalist]

make allowances for how well you followed the specific practices and teachings of the faith.

Uh-huh.

And who is the self-appointed arbiter?

[vorlon13]

A major annoyance is the stripe of Christer that wants others to observe selected Scripture as a matter of state/national law, while being extremely selective in the Scriptures they themselves will even consider obeying.

Especially the 'big ticket' stuff that Scripture records Christ directly commanding, like His prohibition against remarriage following divorce.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Scripture records Christ directly commanding, like His prohibition against remarriage following divorce.

In deed it does.

[vorlon13]

What's the difference between fish on Fridays and abortion that one merits continual attention in the national awareness, and the other is no big deal for everyone else to follow.

A stricture is a stricture.

An edict is an edict.

[Endo]

What if they do the wrong doing in the name of Christianity?

A not uncommon event in history.....

My god, that crossguard is enormous! Sword must way a freaking ton with that much metal to swing around.

The "not a TRUE christian" is just a dismissal tactic and is fallacious. Call them on it, or ignore it as if they never said it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

...may not act as a Christian ought to, but that does not make them not Christian...

That's one of the dilemma's of orthodox Christianity is that you don't need to be a very good Christian to enjoy your "Get-Out-of-Hell-Free" card. People get sorted into two groups: saved and not-saved. It's a pass-fail test. Most other religions, and some Christian denominations like Swedenborgians (that's me), make allowances for how well you followed the specific practices and teachings of the faith.

The Christianity I was taught as a youth emphasized the continual imperfection of men, and so sins were expected -- as was repentance. However, Southern Baptists believe that the confessional is inside the heart of each sinner, and so while sinning was public repentance was private ... unless you were a televangelist or something.

As a result we were loath to say, "Oh, he's not a Christian", for the most part.

[Esquilax]

Any self identified christian is a "true christian" - end of. If they say they believe there we go. So you don't believe what they believe and also call yourself a christian? Tough titties, take a number.

This. Orangebox is asking that we all do exactly the kind of thing that drives me insane when theists do it to atheists, which is to deny their own agency of belief and pretend to know what's in their head better than they do. Not gonna do it.

There's people who are (debatably) good at being christians according to certain metrics, and there are people who are bad at being christians according to those same metrics, but that doesn't mean they aren't christians. I think the OP may have stumbled into another variant of the No True X fallacy, where he's trying to classify a continuum of skill levels at being a christian as a binary on/off proposition. But that's madness; you don't cease to be something just because you're bad at it. Even the world's worst professional soccer player is still a soccer player, he's not unemployed and just coincidentally playing soccer for money.